The good AIPAC

You may have read about J Street, a newly-formed lobbying group that bills itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement."  It was created to act as a counterbalance to the relentless hawkishness of AIPAC and others of that ilk.  This could potentially fill an important role€”, giving mainstream legitimacy to the movement for sanity in the Middle East and offering a safe harbor for US politicians who are uncomfortable with AIPAC but have had nowhere else to go within the pro-Israel camp.

It's not all sunshine and puppies, though;  J Street's policy statements, while clearly in the embryonic stage, give a mixed message.  This is their position on settlements (in its entirety):

Israel's settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace. They have drained Israel's economy, military, and democracy and eroded the country's ability to uphold the rule of law.

Consistent US opposition to settlements should continue, and diplomatic tools such as monitoring and public declarations should continue to be applied.

That's fine as far as it goes, but it's difficult to reconcile it with their core statement on parameters for a final settlement:

The outlines of an agreement are by now well-known and widely accepted: Borders based on the 1967 lines with agreed reciprocal land swaps allowing Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers as well as Palestinian viability and contiguity; a division of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities, establishes the capitals of the two states, and allows freedom of access to all holy sites; robust security arrangements; and resolution of the refugee issue that focuses on resettlement in the new state of Palestine, financial compensation and assistance.

There's not much difference between this rhetoric and the consistent position of Israeli governments, both Labor and Likud; "demographic realities" is just another way of saying "facts on the ground."  And by calling for incorporation of a majority of the settlers (and therefore settlements) within Israel, J Street is effectively saying that although the settlements are an "obstacle to peace" that should be opposed by the US, they should nonetheless be handed over to Israel in a final settlement”—thus rewarding Israel's strategy of slow-motion theft.  It's difficult to square this with a commitment to "Palestinian viability and contiguity," given that the settlements have been consciously engineered to carve up (pdf) the West Bank.  So as it stands, their position on a final settlement is only "well-known and widely accepted" by Israel its US enablers.

But on yet another policy page, J Street calls on the United States to "normalize relations between Israel and the Arab world, utilizing the Arab Peace Initiative and helping to create institutional frameworks for regional cooperation"—and as they must surely be aware, the Arab Peace Initiative calls for "Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights."  As I said, mixed signals.  We'll see if they work out some of these inconsistencies in a way that brings them closer to the actual international consensus (succinctly summarized by the Arab Peace Initiative).

Still, overall this is a positive development, and I wish them luck in counterbalancing the malignant power of AIPAC and other rejectionist Israeli lobbying groups.

UPDATE: There's an article today at CounterPunch about this, and the author keyed on most of the same red flags that I did.  His take is more negative, which is reasonable; J Street's vague policy statements are compatible either with Clinton/Barak-style land grabs or truly mutual land swaps a la the Geneva Accords, so it will come down to which direction J Street chooses as they clarify their positions.  Nonetheless, I think there's some good in having a left(ish)-wing version of AIPAC around even if it stops shy of the international consensus.

Comments

[AlanSmithee]

This looks to me like the I/P version of United for Peace and Justice - a PR organization designed to neuter antiwar activists through co-optation. It'll be a nice place for vaguely leftish democrats to hang their hat, but's it's only real purpose will be to provide political cover for cowardly corporate democrats.

[John Caruso]

That's definitely a possibility, or even a likelihood. Still, the political dialogue in the US is skewed so far toward maximal Israeli demands (not just with respect to the Occupied Territories but also on issues like Iran) that even a small shift would be an improvement. We'll see.

[Thads]

Whoa, don't malign United for Peace and Justice which, far from neutering antiwar activists, has been the largest and most successful organizer of antiwar demonstrations. Does the previous commenter prefer ANSWER, the coalition which always seems to conflate all left-of-center causes, refusing to protest the Iraq war without constant reference to the Cuban trade embargo and Mumia Abu-Jamal?

[Thads]

Whoa, don't malign United for Peace and Justice which, far from neutering antiwar activists, has been the largest and most successful organizer of antiwar demonstrations. Does the previous commenter prefer ANSWER, the coalition which always seems to conflate all left-of-center causes, refusing to protest the Iraq war without constant reference to the Cuban trade embargo and Mumia Abu-Jamal?